Vocabulary, Copto-Greek

[Editorial note: [...] indicates use of Coptic or Greek text. Original script is available for viewing in the PDF format of this article.]
(CE:A215b-222b)
VOCABULARY, COPTO-GREEK. The reader who has not been warned in advance, approaching a Coptic text, will probably be struck by its “Greek” appearance. But even if its superficial appearance is almost entirely Greek, the body thus clothed remains authentically Egyptian. Furthermore, the proportion of elements of Greek appearance to those of Egyptian aspect may vary from one Coptic text to another (because of the DIALECTS, the subjects treated, the stylistic and linguistic preferences of the authors, not to mention the level of their culture, etc.), as will be seen further on. The two following examples, in which will be found either Sahidic (S), Mesokemic (M), “classical” Fayyumic (F5), “classical” Bohairic (B5), on the one hand, or Akhmimic (A), on the other, will show this summarily and in a preliminary way.
First is the best known of the Gospel prayers (Mt. 6:9-13), attested as it happens in four different Coptic idioms (Exhibit 1). The proportions cited here are calculated chiefly on the basis of the Sahidic text. In S this passage requires 219 letters, of which 204 (95 percent) are Greek (see on this subject ALPHABET IN COPTIC, GREEK). If one counts the “words” (following the conventional procedures and omitting the articles and various prefixes, which are always of Egyptian origin), one finds here 41 words, of which only 3 (7 percent) are of Greek origin (in M likewise 3 words out of 40, in F5 2 out of 35 = 6 percent, in B5 2 out of 46 = 4 percent; if instead of considering Mt. 6:9-13 one considered only 6:9-12, one would find in all these idioms no word of Greek origin). This text, as can be seen, is particularly sober in its use of the Copto-Greek vocabulary.
[See PDF version of this article for Exhibit 1.]
The First Epistle of Clement 42.4 in A (Exhibit 2) is as far as can be from this sobriety. This passage uses 108 letters, of which 103 (95 percent) are Greek. If one counts the words, there are 17, of which 12 (71 percent) are of Greek origin.
[See PDF version of this article for Exhibit 2.]
These two examples are probably extreme cases, and the great mass of the Coptic texts lies somewhere between them, readily making use of this Hellenic material, without parsimony or anti-Greek purism but also without falling into “Hellenomania.”
There can be no question here of examining in every detail the problem posed by the variable usage of the Copto-Greek words in the various Coptic texts (the most detailed study of the subject, although limited to the New Testament and to the “languages,” rather than “dialects,” S and B, is Böhlig, 1958; with regard to the Coptic dialects outside S and B, see Kasser, 1983). This discussion will therefore be confined to the most important facts.
Every language carries words borrowed from neighboring languages; in English, for example, there are many words deriving from French, in particular because the political history of England was often and over long periods closely interlocked with that of France. However, the proportion of the Greek words in Coptic (rarely of words that passed into Greek from Semitic languages or from Latin, Persian, or other tongues) is enormous—about 40 percent. This is, of course, counting each lexeme as a unit, for it happens that very often the Copto-Greek words are of rarer usage (because more specialized) in ordinary Coptic texts (not those devoted to law, theology, medicine, etc.), so that their presence there is more modest (about 20 percent on average).
This very evident and massive presence of the Greek element in the Coptic language (as an Egyptian language) has no doubt some relation to the fact that the majority of the Coptic texts preserved today were translated from the Greek. The translations were generally carried out in a rather free manner in S, rather literally in B, where the Greek term of the original was readily taken up into Copto-Greek, especially where the term was difficult to understand, whereas in S, the effort was made to interpret, by means of a more accessible vocabulary, at the cost of departing somewhat from the Greek.
However, that is not the chief cause of what appears as a kind of Hellenization of Egyptian. It results in fact, above all, from a process of linguistic interference, in which Greek naturally most often plays the role of the “donor” and Egyptian that of the “recipient” (Brunsch, 1978, pp. 60-61). This phenomenon is the inevitable result of the Hellenic grip on Egypt during the five centuries or so that preceded the formation of Coptic as a literary language (see ALPHABET IN COPTIC, GREEK). Since Greek had been so long in a dominant position in Egypt, a country of which it became the administrative language from the beginning of the Ptolemaic period and in which there was a strong Greek colony, there gradually came about, of necessity and also through mixed marriages (e.g., between Greek soldiers and Egyptian women), a bilingual milieu, which facilitated the smooth functioning of this heterogeneous social whole, and the diffusion of numerous words from the Greek koine of Egypt (with certain rudimentary concepts that accompanied them) into the widest circles of the native population, which in the beginning did not know Greek.
Furthermore, this diffusion could only have been accelerated and extended by the diffusion of new ideas brought by Greek texts (Judeo-Christianity, Gnosticism, Hermeticism, Manichaeism, etc.). These ideas first took root among the Greek minority in Egypt; later they contaminated the bilingual milieu and then the milieu in which only the native (Coptic) language was spoken. It may be remarked in this connection that, on the one hand, the Coptic words deriving from Greek are for the most part so well assimilated into the Coptic language that it is appropriate to call them “Copto-Greek” rather than “Greek” (they were probably no longer felt to be “Greek,” and thus foreign, by the Copts who used them); but, on the other hand, these Copto-Greek lexemes only rarely play a truly indispensable role in Coptic, for in the majority of cases one could without serious inconvenience replace them with some almost synonymous autochthonous equivalent. (The old Egyptian language was supple enough and rich enough to be able to face up to these diverse new situations, to answer these “modern” needs and adapt itself, as it did several times in the course of a history of several thousand years.) The use of the Copto-Greek vocabulary thus remains very often optional, this aspect of “free choice” being further underlined, more than once, by the fact that the writer apparently delighted in placing side by side the Copto-Greek word and the native Coptic word (redundancy in some sort, as in [...], in order that; [...], [...], not because; [...], again; [...] because; or in tautologies like [...] in the Pistis Sophia; cf. Schmidt and MacDermot, 1978, p. 550). But it is evident that other factors in practice limited this theoretical liberty. In fact, the use of the Copto-Greek vocabulary may be imposed by certain conventions, such as those of some specialized milieu or other. It may be linked also to the personal taste of some author or translator for a given terminology, some writers probably putting on a certain affectation of Hellenizing their discourse while others, for other ideological motives (purism, desire to safeguard an ethnic and religious particularism, etc.), reacted negatively in face of this inclination, which tended progressively to assimilate Egypt to the somewhat hybrid Hellenism of the other provinces of the Byzantine Orient.
In short, one may think that certain ecclesiastical milieus in the third and fourth centuries encouraged the Hellenization of the native Egyptian idioms: Greek was the language common to all parts of the church, it was the language of the theologians after having been that of the Septuagint version (Greek Old Testament) and of the entire New Testament, and so of the Gospel itself. Certainly, it was considered necessary to translate the Bible into Coptic, but this was above all to answer a transitory need, that of the Christianization of the rural masses of Egypt. Once this end had been attained, the partisans of Greek thought that the sooner the Coptic church became Hellenized, the better: by this means they would avoid a dangerous particularism, productive of schisms. And, in fact, it was well recognized that by the force of events the Greek vocabulary of the Copts was becoming richer from generation to generation; it would suffice to accelerate this movement further by multiplying the borrowings from the Hellenic patrimony. From this point of view, every Greek word used in Egypt already belonged by right to the Coptic language and could find its place one day or another in a Coptic sentence; every word in the koine was in some sort potentially a Coptic word. Thus, one may observe here or there the appearance of some Greek word, new in Coptic, used in a moment of audacity or with an urge to emphasis, according to the temperament or the whim of an author.
This movement of openness to Greek was opposed very early by a reaction of native particularism, growing ever stronger, which prevented many Greek words newly introduced into Coptic from becoming profoundly assimilated to it and so becoming part of common usage. Besides, in the third century A.D. the preponderance of Greek in the Roman empire, at least in the principal ports and in wide areas of its eastern part, and in Rome, had been breached, especially by Latin but also, more regionally, by other cultural particularisms. One might thus define Coptic, as it presents itself to the observer in all its diversity, as the fluctuating result of a very incomplete Hellenization of the popular Egyptian language. Certain Greek words were thoroughly assimilated to it, in all levels of the population; others were part of the current professional baggage of specialists (jurists, theologians, physicians, etc.) within their specialization, while remaining foreign to those who did not know sufficiently well the science expressed by this particular learned terminology; still others remained true foreign bodies in Coptic, being used only exceptionally, by an author who did not know how to translate them or took delight in the mystery of a term understood by him alone (or by a very few initiates). Therefore, one cannot describe all these Coptic words derived from Greek uniformly as “assimilated,” “borrowed,” or “foreign.”
A very small part of the Copto-Greek vocabulary appears to have entered into the Egyptian language a very long time before the beginnings of literary Coptic, and probably even before the Ptolemaic period, at a time when Greek had not yet acquired the preponderant role that it later played there for close to a thousand years. One can recognize these words from their orthography, often somewhat distorted in Coptic in comparison with their Greek orthography. Thus, for example (Böhlig, 1958, pp. 6, 80), [...], anchor, S [...], F5 [...], B [...]; [...], skin garment, B [...] but again S [...], S [...], and above all S [...], A, F5 [...]; [...], [...], S, B [...]; [...], plate, dish, S, M [...] but F5 [...], B [...]; [...], linen cloth (or garment), S, A, M [...] but also S [...], B [...]; [...], stater (weight or coin), S, L5 [...], L5 [...], L4 [...], M [...], F5 [...], B [...].
However, the majority of the other words derived from Greek in the Ptolemaic period or even later (“derived from Greek” here may also signify “derived from other languages via Greek,” as is the case, for example, with the Latin census, which became [...], taxation, S [...], M [...], or with [...], incense, S, A, L, M, F, B [...], F7 [...], derived from the Semitic linguistic domain, and with [...], nard, S, A, W, F, F7, B [...], derived from Persian, etc.; Böhlig, 1958, pp. 8-11). In all the Coptic dialects except H (which follows its own ways; see Kasser, 1975-1976, and DIALECT H, OR HERMOPOLITAN OR ASHMUNINIC), these words of Hellenic origin have preserved their original orthography, either exactly or nearly so (perhaps thanks to the bilingualism of the majority of the copyists, who knew well the form of the same terms in the Greek of Egypt). Of course, since Coptic syntax is entirely and radically Egyptian, the Copto-Greek substantives are freed from any Greek declension (they remain in principle invariably in the nominative singular), and the verbs are equally freed from any Greek conjugation (remaining, as a general rule, fixed in a form of the infinitive or, according to the dialects and with loss of the final [...] of the infinitive, in a form identical with that of the imperative), as will be seen further on.
Systematic consonantal modifications are rare and very limited. Considering only the principal characteristics, one may mention here above all [...] becoming [...] (by palatalization) in S, A, L, and M (but not in the other Coptic idioms, which leads one to think that there [...] had a phonological value other than /c/): for example, [...], wickedness, S, A, L [...]. but also S, M [...]; [...] danger, S, A, L [...] or S, A, L, M [...]. It is probably a more complex phenomenon, in which, however, palatalization also plays a certain role, which produces in the case of ci the mutation of[...] into [...] in S, A, L, and M (/khi/ > */kçi/ > */tçi/ > */[...]/ > /[...]/ [?]; see further on with regard to [...] sometimes becoming [...]); thus[...], high priest, S, A, F, B [...], L [...]; [...], chief cook, S, B [...], S [...]; [...] snow, S, A, L, F, B [...], S, A, M [...]; and so on.
It is legitimate to include in the consonantal domain the rough or smooth breathing at the beginning of Greek words starting with a vowel. Very often (and in S more often than in B) the rough breathing is rendered by [...] and the smooth breathing by the absence of any special grapheme before the initial vowel. One dare not speak of a rule here, for there are too many exceptions, proving that at the dawn of literary Coptic the Greek of Egypt no longer made any difference in pronunciation between the rough and the smooth breathing (what continued in the texts and left its reflection in Coptic is only the more or less complete survival of a more or less intact Greek orthographical tradition; see Böhlig, 1958, p. 111, etc.): for example, [...], unjust, S, A, L, F5, B [...]; [...], simultaneously, S, L [...], B [...]; [...], when, S, A, L, M, W, V, FS, B [...]; [...], image, S, A, L, M, F5, B [...]. It will be noted that in a narrow idiomatic (and archaic) Coptic sector (especially L6 and S of the Coptic Gnostic texts from Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt; Kasser, 1980), the initial Greek [...] has as its equivalent [...] rather than [...] (a phenomenon of palatalization, in which /[...]/ would derive from an ancient */çi/ issuing from /hi/ [?]): for example, [...] sufficient, S, A, L4, B [...], S, L6 [...]. On the other hand, it may happen that the Greek [...] is rendered by [...] rather than by [...], as in [...], freedom of speech, S, A, L, F5, B [...], S, A, L, M, W [...], V [...] (idiolectal).
In the area of the vowels, various idiolectal modifications appear (above all confusions between [...], [...], and [...], sometimes also between [...] and [...], [...] and [...], etc.); they will not surprise anyone who deals with the texts of the koine (contemporary with the genesis of Coptic literature) in Egypt and has noted its graphic fluctuations, particularly in vowels (Böhlig, 1958, pp. 91-106; Gignac, 1976- 1981; and PHONOLOGY OF THE GREEK OF EGYPT, INFLUENCE OF COPTIC ON THE); being too numerous and not systematic, they cannot be set out here. However, the substitution of [...] for Greek [...] in B, F, V, and W is very general and regular; thus [...] heresy, S, L, M [...], B [...] (also here and there in S and L); [...], intuition, S, A, L [...], F, B [...] (also here and there in S and L); [...], just, S, A, L, M [...], V. F, B [...] (also here and there in S and M). L4 often replaces a verbal final [...], normally [...] in L, by [...], as in [...], to desire, S, A, [...], L6, M [...], L4 [...] (with regard to F5, B [...], see further on).
In a general way, Coptic invariably uses the Greek substantives in the nominative singular, as with Matthew 24:7, [...] (nominative singular), a people, S [...]; Matthew 6:32, [...] (nominative plural), the Gentiles, S [...]; Romans 11:13, [...] (genitive plural), I, the apostle of the Gentiles, S [...]. Other forms are quite exceptional, as in Luke 1:3, the vocative [...], S, B [...], or the nominative plural of [...], object, vase, plural [...], regularly attested in S, A, and L, as in Romans 9:22, [...], vessels of wrath, S [...] but B [...]. One may note finally that Coptic tends to impose its own native plural endings, in S [...] etc., on Copto-Greek words ending in tonic [...], as with [...], soul, plural [...], Coptic plural S [...], P [...], L6 (?) [...], L4 [...], M [...], F56 [...], B [...]; compare S etc. [...], cattle, plural S [...], B [...], A [...], L4 [...], M [...], H [...], F5 [...]. Should one be surprised that Coptic did not likewise use its plurals S etc. [...] (plurals of words in final tonic S etc. [...]) for Copto-Greek words ending in [...], which would have corresponded to the Greek plural (nominative), such as [...], plural [...]? See for comparison, S, L, etc. [...], old man, S plural [...], and B [...], A [...], L [...], M [...] (F5? [...]). This is not the place for an answer to so delicate a question. One may note finally that, Coptic having only two genders (masculine and feminine, not neuter), a Copto-Greek word corresponding to a Greek neuter is masculine in Coptic, as in Romans 1:32, [...], the act of judgment, the verdict, S [...].
In regard to the Copto-Greek forms corresponding to the Greek adjective, it may be noted that the usages of Coptic are clearly different from those of Greek. The feminine form is rarely preserved: it is most often replaced by the masculine form. In any case, the allocation of these forms (always in the nominative singular) is as follows: the masculine (or on occasion the feminine, when it has survived in Coptic) for persons, the neuter in all other cases. Thus Matthew 12:35, [...], the good man, S [...]; Titus 2:4-5, [...]... [...]... [...], the young women... (are to be).. . domestic, kind, S [...] ([...]...)… [...], B [...] ([...] …)... [...]; Philippians 4:8, [...] whatever is just, S [...], B [...]; Romans 7:12 [...]... [...], the commandment (is) just, S [...] ... [...]. According to the adjectives and the use that may be made of them in the text, it may evidently happen that only their “masculine” or “neuter” form is attested; thus, for example, in the Coptic texts at present known, there is always [...], heretic, S [...], B [...] (it is difficult to imagine a heretical “thing,” although it could be a dogma, a book, etc.), and [...], quadrangular, S, B [...] (a quality that one can scarcely conceive as applied to a person).
In the area of the Copto-Greek verbs (considering only the most important facts) two different usages can be observed (varying with the idioms). First of all, they are only fully felt as verbs (and used as such on the same basis as the native Coptic verbs) in S, M, W, and F56, while in A, L, and B, like any substantive that one wishes to make into a “pseudo-verb,” they are preceded by an auxiliary (the prenominal state of the verb S etc. [...]), A, L [...], B [...]; in V and F, however, there is a variation: about 50 percent with [...] and 50 percent without in F, and a majority of cases with [...] and a minority without it in V; one may observe the same fluctuation in P.
On the other hand, if the form of the Copto-Greek verb is similar to that of the Greek infinitive in B, and often in F and V. it is without the final [...] everywhere else in Coptic. So far as the vocalization of this final syllable [...] or [...] in Greek is concerned, it is invariably [...] in B (F etc.), while it is [...] for [...] and [...] for [...] elsewhere; for example, Copto-Greek pseudo-verbs in Galatians 4:19, [...], to be formed, S [...] Baruch 2:18, [...], be sorrowful, S [...]; and then Copto-Greek verbs, such as [...], believe, S, M, W, (V?), (F) [...], A, L r [...], (V? [...]), (F [...]), V, B [...], F [...]; [...], ask, S [...], (S) M [...], A, L [...], B [...], F [...]. Other verbal terminations include [...], go astray, S, M, W, F5, F56 [...], A, L5, L6 [...], L4 [...], B4 [...]; [...], whip, scourge, S [...], M [...] or [...], A, L r [...], B5 [...], B4 [...]. One may note finally (Böhlig, 1958, pp. 136-37) that B especially has preserved several Greek deponents, such as [...], to salute, S, M, V, F5, F56 [...], A, L [...], B [...].
As a general rule, when Greek words were being carried over into Coptic and becoming Copto-Greek, relatively simple ones were given preference, substantives above all and then verbs (although still treated as substantives by about half of the Coptic idioms). Despite appearances, this does not prevent one from finding in Coptic some adjectives (e.g., [...], good, [...]), derivative substantives signifying some abstraction (e.g., [...], piety, [...])., but also, and most often, [...] from [...], pious; see below), and even a small number of adverbs (e.g., [...], well, [...]).
All the same, Coptic more frequently manufactures its Copto-Greek derivatives by adding some prefix or similar auxiliary element in front of the simple Copto-Greek term. Examples here are restricted to S alone (and above all from the New Testament; see Draguet, 1960).
A Copto-Greek pseudo-verb is created by addition of a verb such as [...], [...] or [...], before a Copto-Greek substantive, its complement as a direct object; thus [...], to be sad, is rendered now by [...], now by F [...] (see below, from [...], sorrow).
A Copto-Greek pseudo-adjective is created by the addition of the genitive preposition and the article before the Copto-Greek substantive; thus Romans 16:26, [...], through prophetic writings, [...], but 1 Peter 1:19, [...], we have... the prophetic word, [...] (from [...], prophet). This pseudo-adjective, when it includes a Greek negative prefix [...], will again spring from a Copto-Greek substantive preceded by a Coptic negative prefix such as [...] or [...] or from a verb preceded by a negative verbal prefix: thus [...], without fruit, barren, [...] or [...] (from [...], fruit). This pseudo-adjective is created also by the addition of a circumstantial prefix in front of a Copto-Greek verb; thus Philemon 6, [...], efficacious, [...] (from [...], to be efficacious).
A Copto-Greek pseudo-substantive signifying an abstraction, a trade, or the like is created from a Copto-Greek adjective or verb, in front of which are placed one or more prefixes. Thus, [...], unbelief, may be rendered either by [...] or by [...] (from [...], unbelieving); [...], money-changer, is in S [...] or [...] (from [...], small piece of money; B and M have adopted [...] and [...], respectively); [...], idolatry, never appears as a Copto-Greek word in Coptic and is replaced (e.g., 1 Cor. 10:14) by S [...], B [...] (from [...], idol).
A Copto-Greek pseudo-adverb is created most often by placing [...], in a, by a, in front of a substantive; thus Luke 7:4, [...], zealously, is [...] in B but [...] in S (literally “in a zeal,” from [...], zeal).
It is fitting to mention here in addition some Greek prepositions that became Copto-Greek. Most notable is [...], according to (distributive), S, A, L, H, M, W, V, F, B [...], which even has a pronominal form in the native Coptic manner, S, B [...] but [...] in the other idioms except for F [...] (in fact a combination of the Copto-Greek [...] with the native preposition S. B [...], [...], M, W, V [...], [...], F [...], [...], A, L [...], [...]) used in particular in expressions such as [...], (each) according to its species (e.g., Gen. 1:25), S, pL, B, B74 [...], or again [...], according to the flesh (e.g., Jn. 8:15) S, L5, B, B74 [...]. One also finds [...], more than, beyond, against, S, A, L, H, M, V, F, B [...], then (in the native fashion) S, B [...], A, L [...]; [...] to, for, S, A, L, M, F, B [...], used most frequently in the expression S [...], L, M, F [...], L, B [...], for a moment (only), ephemeral; [...], except, apart from, S, L, V, F, B [...], then in B alone [...] (Prv. 7:1, [...]. . . [...], except for him, B [...] but P, S [...], A [...]); and so on.
Other grammatical elements passed into Copto-Greek only in stereotyped expressions such as [...], partially, S [...], S, B [...]; [...], that is why, S (especially in Gnostic texts) [...] (alternating with [...]); [...], and besides, S, A, L, M [...], V, F, B [...]; [...], although, S. A, L [...], F, B [...]; [...], and yet, S, L [...], V, F, B [...]; [...], God forbid, S, L [...], S (idiolectal) [...], B [...]; [...], it is not permitted, L5 [...], S, M, F [...], F56 [...]; and so on.
One may also note here, above all in the legal documents (S, see Crum and Steindorff, 1912), some even longer Greek formulas, so long that one may perhaps hesitate to consider them as Copto-Greek and not quite simply Greek (islets of Hellenism preserved by the notaries, who considered them truly indispensable in a context that had become Coptic after the Arab invasion). Thus (ibid., text 48, l. 60) [...], with all due (legal) conformity, [...]; (text 98, l. 36) [...], with every good intention, [...]; (text 39, l. 52) [...], with full right of free conduct and decision, [...]; (text 44, l. 96) [...], in every operation of definitive division, [...].
In any case, certain words of late Bohairic (Stern, 1880, p. 78) are Greco-Coptic rather than Copto-Greek; the preponderant element is autochthonous, but they have been superficially Hellenized by the addition of a Greek ending: thus, for example, [...], baker, from [...], bread baked under the ashes (Vycichl, 1983, pp. 83-84).
There remains to be examined the semantic aspect of the use of Copto-Greek words in Coptic. Apart from various words in common use and of very general sense, there is the matter of the technical terminology of special fields (sometimes partly unknown to pre- Greek Egypt): religions and philosophies newly introduced into the country, political or military life, administration, weights and measures, law, medicine, pharmacology, magic, botany, zoology, mineralogy (including the famous precious stones), clothing, household or agricultural implements, sports, theater, and much else. Appreciation of what was required may thus vary from one idiom to another. Limiting oneself to the two main “languages of Coptic Egypt, S and B (see DIALECTS), one may note, for example, that in the New Testament both B and S render [...], cross, by [...]; but when it is a question of translating [...], crucify, S has opted everywhere for [...] (save one case of [...], hang, suspend), while B has thought it possible to use the native [...], suspend, without inconvenience throughout (but in other literary texts in B one may also find the Copto-Greek verb
In a general way, and as is usually the case with any vocabulary borrowed by one language from another, the Copto-Greek terms are used in a much more restricted sense than the Greek terms from which they derive. For example, if in Greek [...] designates all kinds of “messengers,” including “angels,” in Coptic [...] means only “angels,” while the ordinary messenger is [...] in S and [...] in B. If in Greek [...] designates any aged person, any “old man,” in Coptic an ordinary old man is S etc. [...], while only the “elder” (member of the ruling council of a religious community, etc.) is [...]. If in Greek [...] is “gratitude” in a very general manner, in S (New Testament) [...] seems to describe more particularly (Rev. 4:9, 7:12) a service of thanksgiving or “eucharist,” while elsewhere (in a nonritual expression of thanksgiving, even if it is effusively addressed to God) S contents itself with [...], render thanks, or [...], grace (Acts 24:3; 1 Cor. 16:16; 2 Cor. 4:15, 9:11-12; Eph. 5:4; Phil. 4:6; Col. 2:7; 1 Thes. 3:9; 1 Tm. 2:1, 4:3). Many other cases of this kind could be mentioned.
RODOLPHE KASSER

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

[Editorial note: [...] indicates use of Coptic or Greek text. Original script is available for viewing in the PDF format of this article.]
(CE:A215b-222b)
VOCABULARY, COPTO-GREEK. The reader who has not been warned in advance, approaching a Coptic text, will probably be struck by its “Greek” appearance. But even if its superficial appearance is almost entirely Greek, the body thus clothed remains authentically Egyptian. Furthermore, the proportion of elements of Greek appearance to those of Egyptian aspect may vary from one Coptic text to another (because of the DIALECTS, the subjects treated, the stylistic and linguistic preferences of the authors, not to mention the level of their culture, etc.), as will be seen further on. The two following examples, in which will be found either Sahidic (S), Mesokemic (M), “classical” Fayyumic (F5), “classical” Bohairic (B5), on the one hand, or Akhmimic (A), on the other, will show this summarily and in a preliminary way.
First is the best known of the Gospel prayers (Mt. 6:9-13), attested as it happens in four different Coptic idioms (Exhibit 1). The proportions cited here are calculated chiefly on the basis of the Sahidic text. In S this passage requires 219 letters, of which 204 (95 percent) are Greek (see on this subject ALPHABET IN COPTIC, GREEK). If one counts the “words” (following the conventional procedures and omitting the articles and various prefixes, which are always of Egyptian origin), one finds here 41 words, of which only 3 (7 percent) are of Greek origin (in M likewise 3 words out of 40, in F5 2 out of 35 = 6 percent, in B5 2 out of 46 = 4 percent; if instead of considering Mt. 6:9-13 one considered only 6:9-12, one would find in all these idioms no word of Greek origin). This text, as can be seen, is particularly sober in its use of the Copto-Greek vocabulary.
[See PDF version of this article for Exhibit 1.]
The First Epistle of Clement 42.4 in A (Exhibit 2) is as far as can be from this sobriety. This passage uses 108 letters, of which 103 (95 percent) are Greek. If one counts the words, there are 17, of which 12 (71 percent) are of Greek origin.
[See PDF version of this article for Exhibit 2.]
These two examples are probably extreme cases, and the great mass of the Coptic texts lies somewhere between them, readily making use of this Hellenic material, without parsimony or anti-Greek purism but also without falling into “Hellenomania.”
There can be no question here of examining in every detail the problem posed by the variable usage of the Copto-Greek words in the various Coptic texts (the most detailed study of the subject, although limited to the New Testament and to the “languages,” rather than “dialects,” S and B, is Böhlig, 1958; with regard to the Coptic dialects outside S and B, see Kasser, 1983). This discussion will therefore be confined to the most important facts.
Every language carries words borrowed from neighboring languages; in English, for example, there are many words deriving from French, in particular because the political history of England was often and over long periods closely interlocked with that of France. However, the proportion of the Greek words in Coptic (rarely of words that passed into Greek from Semitic languages or from Latin, Persian, or other tongues) is enormous—about 40 percent. This is, of course, counting each lexeme as a unit, for it happens that very often the Copto-Greek words are of rarer usage (because more specialized) in ordinary Coptic texts (not those devoted to law, theology, medicine, etc.), so that their presence there is more modest (about 20 percent on average).
This very evident and massive presence of the Greek element in the Coptic language (as an Egyptian language) has no doubt some relation to the fact that the majority of the Coptic texts preserved today were translated from the Greek. The translations were generally carried out in a rather free manner in S, rather literally in B, where the Greek term of the original was readily taken up into Copto-Greek, especially where the term was difficult to understand, whereas in S, the effort was made to interpret, by means of a more accessible vocabulary, at the cost of departing somewhat from the Greek.
However, that is not the chief cause of what appears as a kind of Hellenization of Egyptian. It results in fact, above all, from a process of linguistic interference, in which Greek naturally most often plays the role of the “donor” and Egyptian that of the “recipient” (Brunsch, 1978, pp. 60-61). This phenomenon is the inevitable result of the Hellenic grip on Egypt during the five centuries or so that preceded the formation of Coptic as a literary language (see ALPHABET IN COPTIC, GREEK). Since Greek had been so long in a dominant position in Egypt, a country of which it became the administrative language from the beginning of the Ptolemaic period and in which there was a strong Greek colony, there gradually came about, of necessity and also through mixed marriages (e.g., between Greek soldiers and Egyptian women), a bilingual milieu, which facilitated the smooth functioning of this heterogeneous social whole, and the diffusion of numerous words from the Greek koine of Egypt (with certain rudimentary concepts that accompanied them) into the widest circles of the native population, which in the beginning did not know Greek.
Furthermore, this diffusion could only have been accelerated and extended by the diffusion of new ideas brought by Greek texts (Judeo-Christianity, Gnosticism, Hermeticism, Manichaeism, etc.). These ideas first took root among the Greek minority in Egypt; later they contaminated the bilingual milieu and then the milieu in which only the native (Coptic) language was spoken. It may be remarked in this connection that, on the one hand, the Coptic words deriving from Greek are for the most part so well assimilated into the Coptic language that it is appropriate to call them “Copto-Greek” rather than “Greek” (they were probably no longer felt to be “Greek,” and thus foreign, by the Copts who used them); but, on the other hand, these Copto-Greek lexemes only rarely play a truly indispensable role in Coptic, for in the majority of cases one could without serious inconvenience replace them with some almost synonymous autochthonous equivalent. (The old Egyptian language was supple enough and rich enough to be able to face up to these diverse new situations, to answer these “modern” needs and adapt itself, as it did several times in the course of a history of several thousand years.) The use of the Copto-Greek vocabulary thus remains very often optional, this aspect of “free choice” being further underlined, more than once, by the fact that the writer apparently delighted in placing side by side the Copto-Greek word and the native Coptic word (redundancy in some sort, as in [...], in order that; [...], [...], not because; [...], again; [...] because; or in tautologies like [...] in the Pistis Sophia; cf. Schmidt and MacDermot, 1978, p. 550). But it is evident that other factors in practice limited this theoretical liberty. In fact, the use of the Copto-Greek vocabulary may be imposed by certain conventions, such as those of some specialized milieu or other. It may be linked also to the personal taste of some author or translator for a given terminology, some writers probably putting on a certain affectation of Hellenizing their discourse while others, for other ideological motives (purism, desire to safeguard an ethnic and religious particularism, etc.), reacted negatively in face of this inclination, which tended progressively to assimilate Egypt to the somewhat hybrid Hellenism of the other provinces of the Byzantine Orient.
In short, one may think that certain ecclesiastical milieus in the third and fourth centuries encouraged the Hellenization of the native Egyptian idioms: Greek was the language common to all parts of the church, it was the language of the theologians after having been that of the Septuagint version (Greek Old Testament) and of the entire New Testament, and so of the Gospel itself. Certainly, it was considered necessary to translate the Bible into Coptic, but this was above all to answer a transitory need, that of the Christianization of the rural masses of Egypt. Once this end had been attained, the partisans of Greek thought that the sooner the Coptic church became Hellenized, the better: by this means they would avoid a dangerous particularism, productive of schisms. And, in fact, it was well recognized that by the force of events the Greek vocabulary of the Copts was becoming richer from generation to generation; it would suffice to accelerate this movement further by multiplying the borrowings from the Hellenic patrimony. From this point of view, every Greek word used in Egypt already belonged by right to the Coptic language and could find its place one day or another in a Coptic sentence; every word in the koine was in some sort potentially a Coptic word. Thus, one may observe here or there the appearance of some Greek word, new in Coptic, used in a moment of audacity or with an urge to emphasis, according to the temperament or the whim of an author.
This movement of openness to Greek was opposed very early by a reaction of native particularism, growing ever stronger, which prevented many Greek words newly introduced into Coptic from becoming profoundly assimilated to it and so becoming part of common usage. Besides, in the third century A.D. the preponderance of Greek in the Roman empire, at least in the principal ports and in wide areas of its eastern part, and in Rome, had been breached, especially by Latin but also, more regionally, by other cultural particularisms. One might thus define Coptic, as it presents itself to the observer in all its diversity, as the fluctuating result of a very incomplete Hellenization of the popular Egyptian language. Certain Greek words were thoroughly assimilated to it, in all levels of the population; others were part of the current professional baggage of specialists (jurists, theologians, physicians, etc.) within their specialization, while remaining foreign to those who did not know sufficiently well the science expressed by this particular learned terminology; still others remained true foreign bodies in Coptic, being used only exceptionally, by an author who did not know how to translate them or took delight in the mystery of a term understood by him alone (or by a very few initiates). Therefore, one cannot describe all these Coptic words derived from Greek uniformly as “assimilated,” “borrowed,” or “foreign.”
A very small part of the Copto-Greek vocabulary appears to have entered into the Egyptian language a very long time before the beginnings of literary Coptic, and probably even before the Ptolemaic period, at a time when Greek had not yet acquired the preponderant role that it later played there for close to a thousand years. One can recognize these words from their orthography, often somewhat distorted in Coptic in comparison with their Greek orthography. Thus, for example (Böhlig, 1958, pp. 6, 80), [...], anchor, S [...], F5 [...], B [...]; [...], skin garment, B [...] but again S [...], S [...], and above all S [...], A, F5 [...]; [...], [...], S, B [...]; [...], plate, dish, S, M [...] but F5 [...], B [...]; [...], linen cloth (or garment), S, A, M [...] but also S [...], B [...]; [...], stater (weight or coin), S, L5 [...], L5 [...], L4 [...], M [...], F5 [...], B [...].
However, the majority of the other words derived from Greek in the Ptolemaic period or even later (“derived from Greek” here may also signify “derived from other languages via Greek,” as is the case, for example, with the Latin census, which became [...], taxation, S [...], M [...], or with [...], incense, S, A, L, M, F, B [...], F7 [...], derived from the Semitic linguistic domain, and with [...], nard, S, A, W, F, F7, B [...], derived from Persian, etc.; Böhlig, 1958, pp. 8-11). In all the Coptic dialects except H (which follows its own ways; see Kasser, 1975-1976, and DIALECT H, OR HERMOPOLITAN OR ASHMUNINIC), these words of Hellenic origin have preserved their original orthography, either exactly or nearly so (perhaps thanks to the bilingualism of the majority of the copyists, who knew well the form of the same terms in the Greek of Egypt). Of course, since Coptic syntax is entirely and radically Egyptian, the Copto-Greek substantives are freed from any Greek declension (they remain in principle invariably in the nominative singular), and the verbs are equally freed from any Greek conjugation (remaining, as a general rule, fixed in a form of the infinitive or, according to the dialects and with loss of the final [...] of the infinitive, in a form identical with that of the imperative), as will be seen further on.
Systematic consonantal modifications are rare and very limited. Considering only the principal characteristics, one may mention here above all [...] becoming [...] (by palatalization) in S, A, L, and M (but not in the other Coptic idioms, which leads one to think that there [...] had a phonological value other than /c/): for example, [...], wickedness, S, A, L [...]. but also S, M [...]; [...] danger, S, A, L [...] or S, A, L, M [...]. It is probably a more complex phenomenon, in which, however, palatalization also plays a certain role, which produces in the case of ci the mutation of[...] into [...] in S, A, L, and M (/khi/ > */kçi/ > */tçi/ > */[...]/ > /[...]/ [?]; see further on with regard to [...] sometimes becoming [...]); thus[...], high priest, S, A, F, B [...], L [...]; [...], chief cook, S, B [...], S [...]; [...] snow, S, A, L, F, B [...], S, A, M [...]; and so on.
It is legitimate to include in the consonantal domain the rough or smooth breathing at the beginning of Greek words starting with a vowel. Very often (and in S more often than in B) the rough breathing is rendered by [...] and the smooth breathing by the absence of any special grapheme before the initial vowel. One dare not speak of a rule here, for there are too many exceptions, proving that at the dawn of literary Coptic the Greek of Egypt no longer made any difference in pronunciation between the rough and the smooth breathing (what continued in the texts and left its reflection in Coptic is only the more or less complete survival of a more or less intact Greek orthographical tradition; see Böhlig, 1958, p. 111, etc.): for example, [...], unjust, S, A, L, F5, B [...]; [...], simultaneously, S, L [...], B [...]; [...], when, S, A, L, M, W, V, FS, B [...]; [...], image, S, A, L, M, F5, B [...]. It will be noted that in a narrow idiomatic (and archaic) Coptic sector (especially L6 and S of the Coptic Gnostic texts from Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt; Kasser, 1980), the initial Greek [...] has as its equivalent [...] rather than [...] (a phenomenon of palatalization, in which /[...]/ would derive from an ancient */çi/ issuing from /hi/ [?]): for example, [...] sufficient, S, A, L4, B [...], S, L6 [...]. On the other hand, it may happen that the Greek [...] is rendered by [...] rather than by [...], as in [...], freedom of speech, S, A, L, F5, B [...], S, A, L, M, W [...], V [...] (idiolectal).
In the area of the vowels, various idiolectal modifications appear (above all confusions between [...], [...], and [...], sometimes also between [...] and [...], [...] and [...], etc.); they will not surprise anyone who deals with the texts of the koine (contemporary with the genesis of Coptic literature) in Egypt and has noted its graphic fluctuations, particularly in vowels (Böhlig, 1958, pp. 91-106; Gignac, 1976- 1981; and PHONOLOGY OF THE GREEK OF EGYPT, INFLUENCE OF COPTIC ON THE); being too numerous and not systematic, they cannot be set out here. However, the substitution of [...] for Greek [...] in B, F, V, and W is very general and regular; thus [...] heresy, S, L, M [...], B [...] (also here and there in S and L); [...], intuition, S, A, L [...], F, B [...] (also here and there in S and L); [...], just, S, A, L, M [...], V. F, B [...] (also here and there in S and M). L4 often replaces a verbal final [...], normally [...] in L, by [...], as in [...], to desire, S, A, [...], L6, M [...], L4 [...] (with regard to F5, B [...], see further on).
In a general way, Coptic invariably uses the Greek substantives in the nominative singular, as with Matthew 24:7, [...] (nominative singular), a people, S [...]; Matthew 6:32, [...] (nominative plural), the Gentiles, S [...]; Romans 11:13, [...] (genitive plural), I, the apostle of the Gentiles, S [...]. Other forms are quite exceptional, as in Luke 1:3, the vocative [...], S, B [...], or the nominative plural of [...], object, vase, plural [...], regularly attested in S, A, and L, as in Romans 9:22, [...], vessels of wrath, S [...] but B [...]. One may note finally that Coptic tends to impose its own native plural endings, in S [...] etc., on Copto-Greek words ending in tonic [...], as with [...], soul, plural [...], Coptic plural S [...], P [...], L6 (?) [...], L4 [...], M [...], F56 [...], B [...]; compare S etc. [...], cattle, plural S [...], B [...], A [...], L4 [...], M [...], H [...], F5 [...]. Should one be surprised that Coptic did not likewise use its plurals S etc. [...] (plurals of words in final tonic S etc. [...]) for Copto-Greek words ending in [...], which would have corresponded to the Greek plural (nominative), such as [...], plural [...]? See for comparison, S, L, etc. [...], old man, S plural [...], and B [...], A [...], L [...], M [...] (F5? [...]). This is not the place for an answer to so delicate a question. One may note finally that, Coptic having only two genders (masculine and feminine, not neuter), a Copto-Greek word corresponding to a Greek neuter is masculine in Coptic, as in Romans 1:32, [...], the act of judgment, the verdict, S [...].
In regard to the Copto-Greek forms corresponding to the Greek adjective, it may be noted that the usages of Coptic are clearly different from those of Greek. The feminine form is rarely preserved: it is most often replaced by the masculine form. In any case, the allocation of these forms (always in the nominative singular) is as follows: the masculine (or on occasion the feminine, when it has survived in Coptic) for persons, the neuter in all other cases. Thus Matthew 12:35, [...], the good man, S [...]; Titus 2:4-5, [...]... [...]... [...], the young women... (are to be).. . domestic, kind, S [...] ([...]...)… [...], B [...] ([...] …)... [...]; Philippians 4:8, [...] whatever is just, S [...], B [...]; Romans 7:12 [...]... [...], the commandment (is) just, S [...] ... [...]. According to the adjectives and the use that may be made of them in the text, it may evidently happen that only their “masculine” or “neuter” form is attested; thus, for example, in the Coptic texts at present known, there is always [...], heretic, S [...], B [...] (it is difficult to imagine a heretical “thing,” although it could be a dogma, a book, etc.), and [...], quadrangular, S, B [...] (a quality that one can scarcely conceive as applied to a person).
In the area of the Copto-Greek verbs (considering only the most important facts) two different usages can be observed (varying with the idioms). First of all, they are only fully felt as verbs (and used as such on the same basis as the native Coptic verbs) in S, M, W, and F56, while in A, L, and B, like any substantive that one wishes to make into a “pseudo-verb,” they are preceded by an auxiliary (the prenominal state of the verb S etc. [...]), A, L [...], B [...]; in V and F, however, there is a variation: about 50 percent with [...] and 50 percent without in F, and a majority of cases with [...] and a minority without it in V; one may observe the same fluctuation in P.
On the other hand, if the form of the Copto-Greek verb is similar to that of the Greek infinitive in B, and often in F and V. it is without the final [...] everywhere else in Coptic. So far as the vocalization of this final syllable [...] or [...] in Greek is concerned, it is invariably [...] in B (F etc.), while it is [...] for [...] and [...] for [...] elsewhere; for example, Copto-Greek pseudo-verbs in Galatians 4:19, [...], to be formed, S [...] Baruch 2:18, [...], be sorrowful, S [...]; and then Copto-Greek verbs, such as [...], believe, S, M, W, (V?), (F) [...], A, L r [...], (V? [...]), (F [...]), V, B [...], F [...]; [...], ask, S [...], (S) M [...], A, L [...], B [...], F [...]. Other verbal terminations include [...], go astray, S, M, W, F5, F56 [...], A, L5, L6 [...], L4 [...], B4 [...]; [...], whip, scourge, S [...], M [...] or [...], A, L r [...], B5 [...], B4 [...]. One may note finally (Böhlig, 1958, pp. 136-37) that B especially has preserved several Greek deponents, such as [...], to salute, S, M, V, F5, F56 [...], A, L [...], B [...].
As a general rule, when Greek words were being carried over into Coptic and becoming Copto-Greek, relatively simple ones were given preference, substantives above all and then verbs (although still treated as substantives by about half of the Coptic idioms). Despite appearances, this does not prevent one from finding in Coptic some adjectives (e.g., [...], good, [...]), derivative substantives signifying some abstraction (e.g., [...], piety, [...])., but also, and most often, [...] from [...], pious; see below), and even a small number of adverbs (e.g., [...], well, [...]).
All the same, Coptic more frequently manufactures its Copto-Greek derivatives by adding some prefix or similar auxiliary element in front of the simple Copto-Greek term. Examples here are restricted to S alone (and above all from the New Testament; see Draguet, 1960).
A Copto-Greek pseudo-verb is created by addition of a verb such as [...], [...] or [...], before a Copto-Greek substantive, its complement as a direct object; thus [...], to be sad, is rendered now by [...], now by F [...] (see below, from [...], sorrow).
A Copto-Greek pseudo-adjective is created by the addition of the genitive preposition and the article before the Copto-Greek substantive; thus Romans 16:26, [...], through prophetic writings, [...], but 1 Peter 1:19, [...], we have... the prophetic word, [...] (from [...], prophet). This pseudo-adjective, when it includes a Greek negative prefix [...], will again spring from a Copto-Greek substantive preceded by a Coptic negative prefix such as [...] or [...] or from a verb preceded by a negative verbal prefix: thus [...], without fruit, barren, [...] or [...] (from [...], fruit). This pseudo-adjective is created also by the addition of a circumstantial prefix in front of a Copto-Greek verb; thus Philemon 6, [...], efficacious, [...] (from [...], to be efficacious).
A Copto-Greek pseudo-substantive signifying an abstraction, a trade, or the like is created from a Copto-Greek adjective or verb, in front of which are placed one or more prefixes. Thus, [...], unbelief, may be rendered either by [...] or by [...] (from [...], unbelieving); [...], money-changer, is in S [...] or [...] (from [...], small piece of money; B and M have adopted [...] and [...], respectively); [...], idolatry, never appears as a Copto-Greek word in Coptic and is replaced (e.g., 1 Cor. 10:14) by S [...], B [...] (from [...], idol).
A Copto-Greek pseudo-adverb is created most often by placing [...], in a, by a, in front of a substantive; thus Luke 7:4, [...], zealously, is [...] in B but [...] in S (literally “in a zeal,” from [...], zeal).
It is fitting to mention here in addition some Greek prepositions that became Copto-Greek. Most notable is [...], according to (distributive), S, A, L, H, M, W, V, F, B [...], which even has a pronominal form in the native Coptic manner, S, B [...] but [...] in the other idioms except for F [...] (in fact a combination of the Copto-Greek [...] with the native preposition S. B [...], [...], M, W, V [...], [...], F [...], [...], A, L [...], [...]) used in particular in expressions such as [...], (each) according to its species (e.g., Gen. 1:25), S, pL, B, B74 [...], or again [...], according to the flesh (e.g., Jn. 8:15) S, L5, B, B74 [...]. One also finds [...], more than, beyond, against, S, A, L, H, M, V, F, B [...], then (in the native fashion) S, B [...], A, L [...]; [...] to, for, S, A, L, M, F, B [...], used most frequently in the expression S [...], L, M, F [...], L, B [...], for a moment (only), ephemeral; [...], except, apart from, S, L, V, F, B [...], then in B alone [...] (Prv. 7:1, [...]. . . [...], except for him, B [...] but P, S [...], A [...]); and so on.
Other grammatical elements passed into Copto-Greek only in stereotyped expressions such as [...], partially, S [...], S, B [...]; [...], that is why, S (especially in Gnostic texts) [...] (alternating with [...]); [...], and besides, S, A, L, M [...], V, F, B [...]; [...], although, S. A, L [...], F, B [...]; [...], and yet, S, L [...], V, F, B [...]; [...], God forbid, S, L [...], S (idiolectal) [...], B [...]; [...], it is not permitted, L5 [...], S, M, F [...], F56 [...]; and so on.
One may also note here, above all in the legal documents (S, see Crum and Steindorff, 1912), some even longer Greek formulas, so long that one may perhaps hesitate to consider them as Copto-Greek and not quite simply Greek (islets of Hellenism preserved by the notaries, who considered them truly indispensable in a context that had become Coptic after the Arab invasion). Thus (ibid., text 48, l. 60) [...], with all due (legal) conformity, [...]; (text 98, l. 36) [...], with every good intention, [...]; (text 39, l. 52) [...], with full right of free conduct and decision, [...]; (text 44, l. 96) [...], in every operation of definitive division, [...].
In any case, certain words of late Bohairic (Stern, 1880, p. 78) are Greco-Coptic rather than Copto-Greek; the preponderant element is autochthonous, but they have been superficially Hellenized by the addition of a Greek ending: thus, for example, [...], baker, from [...], bread baked under the ashes (Vycichl, 1983, pp. 83-84).
There remains to be examined the semantic aspect of the use of Copto-Greek words in Coptic. Apart from various words in common use and of very general sense, there is the matter of the technical terminology of special fields (sometimes partly unknown to pre- Greek Egypt): religions and philosophies newly introduced into the country, political or military life, administration, weights and measures, law, medicine, pharmacology, magic, botany, zoology, mineralogy (including the famous precious stones), clothing, household or agricultural implements, sports, theater, and much else. Appreciation of what was required may thus vary from one idiom to another. Limiting oneself to the two main “languages of Coptic Egypt, S and B (see DIALECTS), one may note, for example, that in the New Testament both B and S render [...], cross, by [...]; but when it is a question of translating [...], crucify, S has opted everywhere for [...] (save one case of [...], hang, suspend), while B has thought it possible to use the native [...], suspend, without inconvenience throughout (but in other literary texts in B one may also find the Copto-Greek verb
In a general way, and as is usually the case with any vocabulary borrowed by one language from another, the Copto-Greek terms are used in a much more restricted sense than the Greek terms from which they derive. For example, if in Greek [...] designates all kinds of “messengers,” including “angels,” in Coptic [...] means only “angels,” while the ordinary messenger is [...] in S and [...] in B. If in Greek [...] designates any aged person, any “old man,” in Coptic an ordinary old man is S etc. [...], while only the “elder” (member of the ruling council of a religious community, etc.) is [...]. If in Greek [...] is “gratitude” in a very general manner, in S (New Testament) [...] seems to describe more particularly (Rev. 4:9, 7:12) a service of thanksgiving or “eucharist,” while elsewhere (in a nonritual expression of thanksgiving, even if it is effusively addressed to God) S contents itself with [...], render thanks, or [...], grace (Acts 24:3; 1 Cor. 16:16; 2 Cor. 4:15, 9:11-12; Eph. 5:4; Phil. 4:6; Col. 2:7; 1 Thes. 3:9; 1 Tm. 2:1, 4:3). Many other cases of this kind could be mentioned.
RODOLPHE KASSER